Delhi Court June 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sarvan Kumar and anr. Vs. Sohan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT88; 1984(7)DRJ112; 1984RLR622
M.L. Jain, J.(1) Respondent Sohan Lal filed a suit for possession and. mesne profits, against Sarvan Kumar and Kanhiya Lal sons of Ganga Ram deceased on the ground that Ganga Ram was the tenant in respect of a shop in dispute. The plaintiff alleged that he had terminated his tenancy with effect from 30-4-1974 by a registered notice. After the service of the notice the said Ganga Ram became a statutory tenant.. He died on 5-1-1977. The possession of the defendants became unauthorised. (2) The defendants denied that the tenancy of Ganga Ram had been terminated. They said they have inherited the tenancy and are not liable to be evicted. Since there is a relationship of landlord and tenant, the suit was not maintainable. The learned trial court rejected their contentions and decreed the suit. The learned Additional District Judge by his order on 19-8-1983 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal. (3) The substantial point of law that Mr. Kohli vehemently urged in this case is that e...
Dev Raj Bajaj Vs. R.K. Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT216; 1984(7)DRJ105
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The respondent R.K. Khanna was the tenant of one Bhagwan Das in the disputed premises since 3/1/1969 vide Ex. R-3. Appellant Dev Raj later. on purchased the property and Khanna became his tenant. It is a single storey house. It appears that the tenant filed an application to the Controller for fixation of standard rent, while the landlord filed a suit for ejectment. (2) The landlord wanted to construct the first floor. So, an agreement was arrived at between the parties on 9/2/1971. The features of the agreement that are relevant here were as follows :- 1.The tenant and the landlord will withdraw their respective applications. 2.The tenant shall forego the rights of the use of the roof. 3.The landlord agreed to construct one additional room with attached bath room including sanitary fittings and a geyser on the ground floor on the area covered by the kitchen. That room shall be leased out to the tenant. 4.The existing toilet will be converted into a kitchen. The job of...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jayalakshmi Cotton and Oil
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT331TriDel
1. A notice F. No. 198/11/100/ 80-CX.5, dated 22nd September, 1980 was issued by the Govt. of India telling M/s. Jayalakshmi Cotton & Oil Products Pvt. Ltd, Macherla Road, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, that it was tentatively of the view that order-in-appeal No. 176/80, dated 16-5-80, passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad was not proper, legal etc. etc. It, therefore, wanted, by exercising its power under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, to set aside the order-in-appeal and restore the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Guntur's order.2. The dispute was whether hydrogenated rice bran oil with melting point 52C and unfit for human consumption was assessable under item 12 or under item 68, CET. The Asstt. Collector held item 68 was correct but the Appellate Collector over-ruled him saying item 12 was correct, The Govt. of India thought item 68 was correct and so it gave the notice under Section 36(2).3. The matter was argued befo...
imperial Box and Carton Makers Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD551(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal pertaining to the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee, a registered firm, manufactures and sells boxes and cartons.The previous year for the assessment year 1975-76 ended on 31-3-1975.For the year under consideration, the assessee filed a return of income on 11-8-1975, declaring an income of Rs. 49,510. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the ITO noticed the following cash credits aggregating to Rs. 95,000 in the account of Shri Sukhbir Singh :Date of receipt of loan Amount Date of return of loan Rs.2-5-1974 25.,000 7-7-19756-5-1974 25,000 8-7-19755-7-1974 15,000 10-5-197511-3-1975 15,000 9-6-197522-3-1975 15,000 21-4-1975 2. The ITO required the assessee to explain the nature and source of these credits. He also recorded the statement of Sukhbir Singh. The assessee produced evidence in support of the genuineness of the loans.The ITO in detail discussed the evidence produced by the assessee. The ITO, after considering the entire evidence in detail, ...
British Physical Laboratories Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT100TriDel
1.The question that falls for decision in this case is whether the goods described in the import invoice as "Special Coated Tissue for Stencils" fell, for the purpose of countervailing customs duty, under Item 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff (Paper and Paperboard) or under Item 68 thereof (All other goods, not elsewhere specified). The appellants stated at the very outset during the hearing before us today that as the rate of basic customs duty was the same under all the three Customs Tariff headings [Headings 48.01/21(1), 39.01/06 and 39.07] considered in the proceedings at different stages, they would not press for re-classification of the goods for basic customs duty purposes.2. A sample of the subject goods imported by the appellants was available in the appeal file. The appellants stated that the goods were subjected to test by the Custom House Laboratory. The test report stated that the sample was composed of a thin plastic polyvinyl chloride tissue and a thick paper which wa...
Southern Petrochemical Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT103TriDel
1. This is a revision application filed before the Central Government (hereinafter called an "APPEAL") which under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.2. The appellants M/s. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited, Madras, are the manufacturers of various type of fertilisers.The Government of India by Notification No. 198/76-C.E., dated 16-6-1976 announced, a scheme of excise relief to encourage higher production to the extent of 25% duty on the goods cleared in excess of base clearance. As per the notification, the base clearance worked out to 46501.083 MT which was approved by the Assistant Collector, Excise, Tirunelveli. The appellants started availing of the 25% relief w.e.f.14-8-1976 after clearing the base clearance allowed, as per Notification No. 198/76.3. Superintendent of Central Excise, Tuticorin, served the appellants with the show ca...
Lucky Biscuit Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT96TriDel
1. The short point falling for determination in this appeal, which was originally a Revision Petition before the Central Government, is as to whether the claim of the appellants for exclusion of cost of packing, as detailed in their refund application, is tenable or not.2. The facts of the case, as indicated from the impugned order, and the grounds of appeal, are that the appellants are manufacturers of biscuits of different varieties and after this item came under excise control by Finance Act, 1970, the appellants submitted a price list.This price list effective from 26-3-1970, contained details and particulars of different types of biscuits manufactured by the appellant company. The quantity, as well as kind and size of the packages, and the cost of the packages as also that of the tins, cartons or wooden cases, inclusive of excise duty and other particulars of rebate, discount etc. were also indicated. This list, as submitted by the party, was approved by Range Superintendent on 2...
Lallubhai Amichand Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT319TriDel
1. The appellants had filed this Revision application against the Order-in-Original dt. 9-6-1982, passed by Sh. K.S. Dilipsinhji, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, before the Central Board of Excise & Customs, which stands transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as an appeal filed before it. By the said order, the learned Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-1 (hereinafter called Collector) confirmed the demand of Rs. 18,53,063.20 paise on 'Aluminium Circles' falling under T.I. 27(b) of the Central Excise Tariff on the appellants.2. Facts material for decision of this appeal are : that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Utensils/Containers. For the purpose of manufacturing such products, they cut out Aluminium Circles falling under T.I. 27(b) from Aluminium Sheets also falling under the same sub-tariff item i.e. 27(b). It appears that before 1970, in such a situation no excise duty was collected at the stage of manufacture of Circles and at that time du...
Nu Wood Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT93TriDel
1.The appellants imported exposing glass cylinders or photoprint cylinders. They use them as components in contact type photo-copying machines manufactured by them. The Custom House assessed the cylinders under Heading 70.21 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for basic customs duty and for countervailing duty under Item 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants applied for refund of the countervailing duty on the ground that the goods were correctly classifiable under Heading 90.10 of the C.T.A. and by virtue of that classification they were fully exempt from countervailing duty under Notification No.362/76-Cus. dated 2-8-1976. Their claims have been rejected by both the lower authorities who have upheld the original classification under Heading 70.21. This, in short, is the point of dispute involved in these two appeals. "90.10 Apparatus and equipment of a kind used in photographic or cinematographic laboratories, not falling within any other Heading in this Chapter, photo-cop...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT88TriDel
1.This appeal is against the Collector (Appeals)'s order dated 27-9-1983. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of wrapping and other varieties of paper. In accordance with the requirements of Rule 173C, the Respondents filed price lists Nos. 3/80 to 6/80. While giving his approval to the price lists, the Assistant Collector, Jabalpur ordered on 26-8-1980 that "wrapping paper used m packing reams/reels and reelcore on which the paper is wound are packing materials. The cost of such packing shall be included in the assessable value of paper as per adjudication order No. V( 17)3-3/76/24689-90 dated 25-11-1976 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jabalpur". The matter was pursued in appeal. The appellant also took up the plea' that if the cost of packing was to be so included, then proforma credit (under Central Excise Rule 56A) of the duty already paid on the wrapping paper consumed for wrapping within the factory should...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »